Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Curtis E. Bemis who wrote (834)	9/16/2000 1:11:06 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Yes, the facts speak for themselves, and the study still stands. But only relative to the model that it depicts. Problem is they used too few stations to be relevant for networks that scale beyond the 24 station population which they arbitrarily <?> chose. >>I fail to see the need to rehash a decade of technology implementation and developments in the IEEE802.3 suite...<< I'd agree with you on this point, we really should move on. Except that these issues don't go away due to the backwards compatibility quality inherent in Ethernet, which keeps many of the now-seemingly arcane protocols alive. Which translates into a need to know them, or at least a need for continued posting in the back of one's mind. I'm not suggesting that this is an onerous aspect of the protocol. On the contrary, Ethernet's backwards compatibility is perhaps its strongest suit(e) ;-) FAC BTW, I omitted mention of the capture effect due to the very reasons you cite and an overriding need on my part to conserve on bandwidth at 3 o'clock in the morning. Thanks for pointing it out, though.